Ask the Author Live: Dexter Filkins on Pakistan

This week in the magazine, Dexter Filkins writes about a murder in Pakistan. On Wednesday, Filkins answered readers’ questions in a live chat. Read a transcript of the discussion below.

DEXTER FILKINS: Hi everyone. I’ll do the best I can. Ask away!

QUESTION FROM DOUG: Thanks for talking to us today Dexter. On the ground, in what ways does Pakistan feel different after the bin Laden raid?

DEXTER FILKINS: Doug, thanks. Pakistan feels very different, and, sad to say, much worse. The raid to kill Osama humiliated the army and hence much of the country. And so there is a very large sense of anti-Americanism there now and a larger sense of de-moralization.

QUESTION FROM SAFDAR: Hi Filkins. I loved your article. It is a true reflection of Pakistan as a garrison state. What’s your guess on how it will end after the ongoing tussle between the Pakistani army and the US ? Today there was a bomb blast at the American Embassy in Kabul for which the Haqani network allegedly supported by the Pak military has been blamed.

DEXTER FILKINS: Sardar, thanks. To be honest with you, I don’t know where it ends. The really big thing to remember here is that, fundamentally, the interests of the U.S. and of the Pakistan military are very far apart. That’s just a fact. It’s the reason why the relationship is so bad. But national interests don’t necessarily change, no matter how much money you give a government.

QUESTION FROM MURRAY: Enjoyed the article and your book The Forever War. Do you think that better US-India ties can be an effective check on Pakistan and hence fundamental Islam?

DEXTER FILKINS: Murray, thanks. It’s been amazing to watch the U.S. and India grow so close, after so many decades of bitterness. Now the two countries could not be closer. I think the two countries have a joint interest in containing the implosion of Pakistan. But, of course, part of the troubles of the region are due to Kashmir dispute, and on this, the Indians do not want our help.

QUESTION FROM GUEST: Is the continuing escalation of drone strikes in Pakistan further alienating the country from the United States? And are you surprised at the Obama Administration’s use of them?

DEXTER FILKINS: On the drones, yes, they are widely hated in Pakistan. They may be effective—I think they are—but they are daily reminder for Pakistanis that they do not control their sovereignty. I’m not surprised that Obama has stepped up the drone strikes. The evidence suggests that they are quite effective—though they do kill civilians, too—and if the U.S. cannot persuade the Pakistanis to take action against some of these militants, than I think Obama figures this is the next best thing.

QUESTION FROM FRANCINE: As an American journalist, do you feel threatened while meeting with journalists and officials in Pakistan?

DEXTER FILKINS: Thanks, Francine. I love Pakistan, but it’s a dangerous place for Americans. I don’t feel threatened meeting journalists or officials, though. But I have to be very much on guard when I’m there. There is a danger of being kidnapped—this has happened to a lot of Americans—or of being killed. It’s not easy working there.

QUESTION FROM READS: How common are these kind of message killings?

DEXTER FILKINS: Well, I think 46 journalists have been killed in Pakistan since 2001. But those journalists have been killed by many different actors, not just the government, but also the militants. But that’s a lot of dead reporters.

QUESTION FROM GREGORY: Is Pakistan a safe place for international journalists?

DEXTER FILKINS: Gregory, no, it’s not. Remember Daniel Pearl.

QUESTION FROM GUEST: Your description of Pakistani newspapers and media (ie, who gets in trouble and who doesn’t) is great. What is your sense of how people access the news? Are there ramifications for reading stories in addition to writing them?

DEXTER FILKINS: This is interesting question. For Pakistanis who have access to the internet, they can read whatever they want. But when I was there was a pervasive fear among Pakistanis that they were being monitored—that their phones were being tapped, emails read, internet looked at. It’s hard to say how much is real and how much is paranoia.

QUESTION FROM KACPER: Do you think the ISI will weather this murder crisis and nothing changes? It’s the first time they’re being called to account in public. And unusually their connection to the murder is indisputable

DEXTER FILKINS: Well, I don’t want to sound cynical, but I don’t have much hope that anyone will be arrested for Saleem’s murder. And it’s not terribly difficult to figure out who killed him.

QUESTION FROM CARL: What is the current split between military/civilian control, and is that changing?

DEXTER FILKINS: Carl, in Pakistan, the military has most of the power. The civilians, by and large, have very little. I don’t see that changing unless or until there is a crisis of some sort that really fundamentally alters the make-up of the country. It’s too deep-seated.

QUESTION FROM MY NAME IS KHAN: According to the Daily Telegraph, as many as 25,000 American troops will remain in Afghanistan for at least a decade longer than the official deadline (2014). Could that potentially change Pakistani calculus towards Afghanistan and their need/desire for a proxy there (to counterbalance India/Indian influence in Afghanistan)?

DEXTER FILKINS: Well, I don’t know where the Telegraph gets their information, but those decisions about U.S. troops have not been made yet. That’s not a decision that the military makes. As for Pakistan, ultimately, they are concerned about chaos in Afghanistan. They don’t want that, and at the same time, they are convinced that the U.S. is going to leave soon. Hence their support for various parties, like the Taliban, inside the country.

QUESTION FROM NICK: Hi, Dexter. Terrific piece. So much of the coverage of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan seems to omit or ignore that arguably the biggest reason the U.S. is there (and will stick around past 2014, no doubt) is to keep eyes on Pakistan. Why aren’t we hearing and reading more about that? P.S. “The Forever War”—amazing.

DEXTER FILKINS: Thanks, Nick. Really nice of you. The Afghanistan-Pakistan distinction is one of the trickiest parts of the war. We’re in Afghanistan, but if you ask any expert, they will tell you the same: It’s Pakistan that we need to worry about. It’s 200 million people, mostly illiterate, deeply unstable, and it’s got 100 nuclear weapons, the locations of which we are not sure of. That’s really what keeps people up at night.

QUESTION FROM MICHAEL: With the raging domestic crises, namely the economy, and the seeming drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, will foreign issues play a role at all in the next Presidential election?

DEXTER FILKINS: Michael, as for the U.S. election, I doubt foreign policy will play much of a role. People are worried about the economy, and rightly so. What struck me, though, watching the GOP debate the other night, was that most of the candidates seemed to want to pull the troops out of Afghanistan. That’s a measure, I think, of how worried everyone is about our own troubles at home.

QUESTION FROM RAJ: For a country that contributes zilch towards world GDP, don’t you think it is remarkable that a state policy of blackmail and extortion has served Pakistan very well in the past 3 decades?

DEXTER FILKINS: Raj, yes. Pakistan is remarkable in that respect. As I mentioned, I think the real reason that U.S. policy makers care about the place—and even to a certain extent about Afghanistan—is because it has nukes, and because it has Al Qaeda. It’s certainly not its economy. Pakistan’s leaders are keenly aware of that fear, and they use it.

QUESTION FROM SADANAND: According to you, what are the chances of the Pakistani army and the ISI being brought under civilian control over the medium or long term?

DEXTER FILKINS: Pretty close to zero, unfortunately. In Pakistan, the military has all the cards.

QUESTION FROM SADANAND: Are you surprised that despite its explosive allegations your story has received so little coverage in the Pakistani press? Why do you think this is so?

DEXTER FILKINS: Good question. I don’t know for sure, of course. But my guess is that editors are afraid of what will happen to them if they delve too deeply into this subject, or publicize it.

QUESTION FROM TREVOR BUI: Why has Islamabad become so much more dangerous; and how has that changed daily life for people there?

DEXTER FILKINS: Trevor, as I mention in my piece, Islamabad was always a sleepy town and it’s not anymore. But that does not surprise me. There are thousands of militants who are now at war with the Pakistani state, and Islamabad is its capital. So they go there to strike.

QUESTION FROM COTTERN: Dexter, loved the article. Are the Baluchi rebels completely separate from the Taliban/Al Qaeda or is there any overlap/common interests that they collaborate together on? Would the Quetta Shura be supported at all by native Baluchis?

DEXTER FILKINS: Cottern, this is a really good question, and I will attempt an answer. I think they are mostly separate. The Baluch insurgency has been going on and off for decades. But there are lots of Taliban there, particularly Afghan Taliban. I’ll tell you this: I wish it were easier for someone like me to go to Baluchistan to see for myself. But it’s practically impossible.

QUESTION FROM GUEST: So why do we prop up Pakistan, again? Seems to me it’s better off letting it fail. It’s never been a success since partition and statehood. Why not call a spade a spade and let it go? Most major nations and some minor ones have nukes: it can’t be that Pakistan’s small horde of barely tested assemblies is that much of a problem to begin with. Thanks.

DEXTER FILKINS: Well, I think the answer is that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is considered way to dangerous to take that gamble. Remember, the dangers are many: The fear is that Islamist militants or Islamist-minded officers in the Pakistan army could take over the state, or that sympathizers inside the military could help Al Qaeda or a like group acquire a nuclear weapon. Let me tell you, those fears are not notional. They are very real.

QUESTION FROM DANIEL: Could you talk a little bit about the gang violence in Karachi? It seems like Jamaica where gangs are used as proxies between political parties. How does the violence in that city affect the national politics of Pakistan?

DEXTER FILKINS: Thanks Daniel. I’m not an expert on the ethnic violence in Karachi. But I think, for the most part, that it’s contained to the city itself. That said, the city is enormous, perhaps 18 million people. It’s basically ungovernable.

QUESTION FROM ADIL: General Hamid Gul almost wishes that Pakistani main stream parties fail so that the revolutionaries can make a case for their turn at the helm of affairs. Do you not think by alienating Pakistani main stream ie army etc USA risk their collapse and hence fall of the last defence against the Taliban given the dismal performance of the political parties?

DEXTER FILKINS: Adil, this is a really good question. That is precisely the danger now, I think. The level of anti-Americanism in Pakistan is so high, that any government that cooperates with the U.S. is discredited in the eyes of the people. Pakistanis, by and large, have never supported the jihadi parties, but increasingly their hatred of the U.S. is pushing them in that direction.

QUESTION FROM MARC: I am married to someone from a Pakistani family. They know people who have either been murdered or kidnapped for fleeting political gain. It seems to be getting worse. They are all angry at the continuing rise of “beardos” and fanaticism. I like to imagine our (US) relationship with the government could cease. But I suppose this would never happen in the immediate future. The trade off must be just positive enough to continue. Do you meet many people sympathetic to the West?

DEXTER FILKINS: Marc, oh sure. Pakistan is full—full—of Pakistanis who have family in the U.S. and the U.K. Most of them would come and live here in a second if they could.

Azmat, that’s right. I found some information that was interesting and intriguing—and interesting enough to raise questions. But I did not have enough to answer them. I wanted to share what I found with the readers.

QUESTION FROM LEGAL EAGLE: Do you think the country will collapse if the military suddenly loses power?

DEXTER FILKINS: Well, I think Pakistan is in danger of collapse in any case. Maybe not tomorrow or even next year, but in five years, I think the possibility is very real, whether the army has the power or not.

QUESTION FROM GUEST: Hi Dexter, you mention in your piece that Saleem Shahzad had a view of Al-Qaeda which would liken it to some grand, monolithic entity pursuing Islamist aims on a global scale. You correctly point out that the conventional wisdom in Western intel is to see it as a beleaguered and far-flung “franchise” at best. What is your own understanding of the scope, structure and scale of Al-Qaeda as an organization, and how useful do you find Saleem Shahzad’s reporting if his understanding of Al-Qaeda differs so much from (perhaps) your own?

DEXTER FILKINS: I think Saleem talked to a lot of people who were close to Al Qaeda, so he knew a lot of details. I do think he was a little off, though, in the way that he viewed Al Qaeda. No one really knows the full story. My own sense is that Al Qaeda proper has been decimated by the drone strikes. But that there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of people in Pakistan who share the ideology.

QUESTION FROM S. D. BRITTON: Like a lot of people, I am most concerned about the nukes in Pakistan and the people guarding them. Is the CIA helping the Paks guard the nukes? Does the ISI have anything to do with watching the nukes?

DEXTER FILKINS: I think everyone is worried about the nukes. Yes, the U.S. government and military has offered the Pakistanis all sorts of help to safeguard their nukes. But the Pakistanis are very, very suspicious of the motives of the U.S. in this regard, and so they are reluctant to take all the help offered. It’s difficult to overstate just how paranoid they are about their nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s leaders believe the world is coming after them.

DEXTER FILKINS: Jasmeet, thanks very much for the nice words. Well, none of this can foresee the future, and I hate to try, but I don’t see American forces as being out of Afghanistan in 2014. I think they will still be there. The big question is what will the numbers be, and whether they will be sufficient—along with the Afghan Army, about which I am deeply skeptical—to maintain some kind of order in the country.

QUESTION FROM ASAD: There is already a judicial commission set up to investigate the murder of journalist Shahzad. What do you think, would it be able to bring the all powerful ISI to justice?

DEXTER FILKINS: Asad, no, I’m not holding my breath for that one.

QUESTION FROM PG: Did you ever feel that you were in physical danger while covering this story?

DEXTER FILKINS: PG. Thanks. Well, I was continuously being watched and monitored by the ISI. They came to my hotel, they listened to my phone, that sort of thing. My biggest fear in that case was that they would throw me out the country. But what really did worry me was the prospect of getting kidnapped or grabbed by some bad guys outside the government. I met some Taliban, too. I try to be careful, but it’s still a roll of the dice.

QUESTION FROM HANNAH: Hello. I feel a little stupid, but after ten years I’m still having trouble understanding some of the differences between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and now the Haqqani network in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Would you be able to explain some of their differences and the relationships between them? (If that’s too broad a question, maybe you could point out a good source for understanding them better)

DEXTER FILKINS: This stuff is very important, and it’s hard even for someone like me, who is obsessed, to understand it. You have the Afghan Taliban, which is the group led by Mullah Omar. And the TTP, or the Pakistani Taliban, which is fighting against the Pakistani government. And you have the Haqqani group, which is a sort of branch office of the Afghan Taliban. Here’s the thing: They are all in Pakistan. And the Afghan Taliban as well as the Haqqani group—which are fighting in Afghanistan—-get help from the Pakistani military. At the same time the Pakistani military is fighting the Pakistan Taliban. Did you get all that? It’s a mess.

QUESTION FROM AM: Do you put any blame on politicians for the rise in terrorism in the country?Especially considering that Southern part of Punjab province has often been now talked as new breeding ground for terrorists?

DEXTER FILKINS: The politicians, yes. But really the problems of Pakistan are very deep and very broad and a long time in the making. It’s basically a feudal society overseen by the army, and religion plays a very large role in people’s lives. You can blame the politicians for all that, but there is no quick fix.

QUESTION FROM NATASHA: Is Pakistan considered the hub of Al Qaeda, and do you think it is weakening as they say?

DEXTER FILKINS: Natasha, yes, the main leadership of Al Qaeda is still thought to be in Pakistan. What is left of it, I should say. They have been hammered pretty hard. But there are AQ afflilates in many other places, like Somalia and Yemen. Al Qaeda has evolved into a sort of franchise operation, not unlike McDonald’s.

QUESTION FROM SALMA: Beautifully written piece Mr. Filkins. If the US were to cut back its aid to the Pakistani military would it prove viable on the long term while still preventing the country from falling in the hands of religious fundamentalists? There just seems to be no other potential means of insuring that the people and political parties could take over. Furthermore, it seems like the US played quite a part in empowering the ISI with all the aid that has been offered for years to the Pakistani military… so we cannot exonerate the US government from blame for flawed policies in the region that have only served to worsen matters.

DEXTER FILKINS: Salma, thanks very much. You’re right. The U.S. bears a large responsibility for many of the things that have gone wrong in Pakistan. No question. That said, the choices are pretty much all bad. If you subsidize the military, you empower them. If you don’t, then maybe the country slips into the chaos and the nukes get loose. It’s not easy.

QUESTION FROM ABDULLAH ZAIDI: How do you see the unprecedented criticism that was directed towards the Pakistani military establishment in the aftermath of the Shehzad’s murder from the Pakistani media? The May 02 raid, PNS attack and Shehzad’s murder have collectively eroded the military’s integrity both as a disciplined institution and as a sacred cow which might be a good thing in the long run. What do you think?

DEXTER FILKINS: Abdullah, well, you’ll see from the story, but the Pakistan military was humiliated by the Osama raid, and by the Mehran attack. They were really exposed. And so there is this large sense of demoralization in the country: the one institution that everyone believed still worked turns out not to work very well at all.

QUESTION FROM GUEST: If Pakistan’s nukes falling into radical (like the ISI isn’t radical) is such a problem, let the neighbors deal with it. It’s not likely that stuff is coming this way. Do the mathematics of how heavy a nuclear device is. What are they going to do? Smuggle it in a truck and then onto a sampan?

DEXTER FILKINS: Maybe you are right. But if you were in Obama’s seat, would you gamble that you were right? It’s a big risk to take—a loose nuke.

QUESTION FROM NATALIE CASH: Fantastic article, could not put it down! In your experience, do the average Pakistanis you encounter have trouble processing the disconnect between a fairly lively media and press freedoms with so many dead journalists? Or the disconnect that the ISI either hid bin Laden or was so incompetent it didn’t realize some faction within was complicit? Amazing and confusing place.

DEXTER FILKINS: Thanks, Natalie. I think the typical Pakistani lives with a lot of contradictions in their lives—all the things that you mention. It’s often as confusing to them as it is to us. It’s just the nature of the place. As for the journalists, they live in constant fear. They really do.

QUESTION FROM ASH: Given the close degree of cooperation between the CIA and the ISI how culpable is the U.S. intelligence agency for the actions of its Pakistani counterpart?

DEXTER FILKINS: Ash, I think it depends on the details. The ISI and the CIA do indeed cooperate, but not as much as you might think. And they also spy on each other. It’s a complicated world.

QUESTION FROM ALEC: Dexter, your writing as always continues to amaze me for its courage and bravery. FOREVER WAR is one of the best nonfiction books about war. This is a bit off point, perhaps, but I wonder how writing for the NYer has changed your style or methodology—research, the stories you choose to focus on, etc.?

DEXTER FILKINS: Thanks so much, Alec. Well, I left the Times and came to The New Yorker eight months ago. It’s been a huge change. They are both very good places with very high standards, but they are very different. I’m still getting used to it.

QUESTION FROM MATT: Dexter. loved Forever War and the articles you have written. was wondering are there any other good books you would recommend about the issue and area

DEXTER FILKINS: Matt, thanks. There are a lot of good books on Pakistan. Anything by Ahmed Rashid. Also, fiction. The English-language fiction that Pakistanis are producing these days is extraordinary. One novel in particular: “A Case of Exploding Mangos,” by Mohammed Haneef. Dark and hilarious.

QUESTION FROM SARAH: Hi Dexter. The way you ended your article made me want to ask you this. Some journalists risk their lives and continue to go after critical issues. Some decide to move away at some point. You are known for your brave reporting. What do you think are some of the distinctive characteristics of those who put their lives on the line for a great story?

DEXTER FILKINS: Good question, Sarah. Some of the Pakistani journalists are so brave that it is just humbling. Saleem died a terrible, awful and slow death. And these journalists know that’s a possibility for them every day. The idealism of some of them is really inspiring.

QUESTION FROM DONNA: The relationship between Pakistan and Iran is a good one, yes? What is the likelihood that a Pakistan-origin nuclear weapon could end up in the hands of Iran?

DEXTER FILKINS: Donna, good question. The Iran-Pakistan relationship complex, but I do believe that the Iranians got some of the plans for their nukes from A. Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, but I think mostly when he was running his crazy free-lance operation.

QUESTION FROM KALSOOM: So you mentioned that the possibility of Pakistan’s failure in five years is very, very real. What would prevent that from happening in your opinion?

DEXTER FILKINS: Kalsoom, I ask myself this question all the time. If I were the benevolent dictator of the world, I’d probably cut the army’s budget and build a lot more schools.

QUESTION FROM GUEST: In many parts of the article, it seems like you have just a single source. Did you feel like that was enough or did you look for other sources to confirm/deny the single source’s account of events?

DEXTER FILKINS: Guest, no, I had many, many sources for that story. It’s just that, in Pakistan, many were reluctant to talk, often because they feared for their safety. In the U.S., because the information was extremely sensitive.

Everyone: Thank you so much for these questions. And for reading my stuff. All the best.

Illustration by Sean McCabe.

The New Yorker offers a signature blend of news, culture, and the arts. It has been published since February 21, 1925.